Absolutely; the government's first responsibility is to its citizens.

If the Federal Government had the money (which it would, if it would stop wasting it on bank bailouts and the military) there's no rationale for NOT providing a better quality of life for the lower part of its population. There are a host of reasons why people are poor, the least prominent of which is laziness. Most are subjected to this fate not through any unprovoked misdoings, but primarily by poor upbringing and circumstances, causing any bad decisions which the more conservative among us would probably attribute to freedom or personal choice. Yeah, right. A human being doesn't choose to be a certain way; he is influenced subconsciously by millions of untraceable factors, some bigger, some smaller, throughout his lifetime. It's simply the way our brains work. Denying benefits to those who end up poor would be an unjust penalization for something they had little ability to control; particularly in our system, where opportunity isn't quite as widespread as some would like us to believe.

For those who claim laziness is exacerbated, or even caused, by so called "handouts"; this is not the case whatsoever. A drive to work comes from more than financial compensation. What do you think it would be like, just sitting around all day, waiting for your welfare check? Personally, I feel like that would be a very bleak existence indeed. Which explains the fact that most recipients of welfare/food stamps are employed full or part time. Look it up.

The government should fund programs which help the poor

Many people in the US are hard working and have jobs which do not pay a liveable wage. These people are not trying to scam money from the government they are just trying to get by. Many people who receive money from these programs are actually working and paying into the programs they are using. The government is not giving these people money the citizens who pay into the system when they pay their taxes are giving these people money.

The government should look out for the poor.

I believe that the government should give money to the poor in the way of infrastructure and support. I believe it is the job of the government to make sure that its populace is well cared for, fed, healthy, and taken care of. So I think that the government should.

We are all people.

All people should be treated the same and we should all have the right to have a place to call home. Money is one of the most necessary things in life and to have nothing except your clothes and to plead for money is what in that time people could be working and growing a family and their lives. Lots of poor people are abused mentally and physically and can not do anything about it because they have no protection and empowerment against the abusers. People in the world should have the right to feel safe where ever they are.

There are thousands of struggling families not able to feed their children.

Thousands of children go hungry because of poverty and poor parents. Even parents with minimum wage jobs struggle to put food on the table for their children. 15 million children depend on school lunch programs for food. But, during the summer or during breaks, they go hungry due to how expensive food has become and how little people are paid.

Sure, it should.

The welfare state is one of the few institutions which holds back modern capital from fully exploiting workers. The redistribution of wealth into the hands of those who are excluded from the system by unemployment, or stuck with low social mobility in minimum wage jobs is a positive thing: 1) because it redistributes power to ordinary citizens , 2) it helps these citizens have better lives, and 3) putting money into the hands of people who will actually spend it rather than save it helps increase economic output.

Sure, there are problems of "abuse"...But if you're more worried about flaws in a system which is primarily designed to help people and does a damn good job of it rather than being angry about an economic system in which a few individuals profit off the labor of many, exclude large numbers of people from the workforce to depress wages, and consistently use the government to profit off crisis, then you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Social welfare keeps us safe.

The thing about poverty is, no one knows when it might happen to them. So it's a little hard to say no to this question. Our current economy can result in half of the people reading this being a paycheck away from being on the street. Welfare, aka giving money to the poor, is something our government needs to do to ensure a social safety net is in place.

No, charities should do that.

No, the government should not give money to the poor, because the government cannot do an efficient job of it. Charities can do a much better job of giving things to the poor, because a charity can monitor whether the gifts are being abused. The government does not handle money well, and other people giving directly to others is best.

Giving Money to the poor causes laziness

The Government should not give money to the poor because of several reasons. Currently the United States Government is in a heap of debt, and they should resolve their current problems rather than keep spending their own money on the poor people. Secondly, giving money to the poor people will induce laziness in those poor people because their mindset will be to receive money while doing nothing rather than going out to get a job but only earning a little more. The United States government's current stance is giving money to the poor people of America, but what it does is that is kills the incentive for those poor people to go out and find a job.

Common sense should answer this.

When a bear can't provide for itself, it dies. The result is a population of genetically fit bears that can provide for themselves. The human population is unfathomably high because the successful humans are forced to provide for the large population of humans that can't survive without help. Everybody having the right to live is a delusion. Nobody has that right.

The govenment should provide assistance but not give money to the poor

Welfare should exist but should be a temporary measure with an eye towards helping people find permanent jobs. We should not have starving citizens, but welfare and other public assistance should not be "handouts". Children especially need help with programs like WIC. They should not have to suffer or starve. People sometimes need help and the government should provide it.

Focused Assistance Programs Are Best

I believe the poor should receive support from the government, but not via cash. I believe if a person needs assistance they should be able to identify the areas they need help with. There are a number of programs that provide assistance that are not cash bases, at least not to the recipient. SNAP is a perfect example, because although it is loaded, the funds can only be used for food items. Child Care Assistance is often done in the same way, where the recipient doesn't receive the cash directly, rather it goes to the care provider, as it should.

It should give jobs or

Training for jobs rather than money. Giving money can make them lazy, it won't help improve their conditions in a real way; it won't help in their overall growth. They should also be provided education. Only in worst cases, they should be provided food and clothes, not money, just for living.

I do not think the government should give to the poor.

Although, it is right for people to give to the poor, as they usually do not live a substantial lifestyle as we do, it is not the government's job to give to the poor, as many people give to the poor every day. Don't forget that the money given to the government is the people's money, so they should get to decide what to do with their money, since most of the money given to the government comes from taxes. Furthermore, how would the government know who was the poor, if they did decide to donate. Think realistically, the government do not have time to go around looking for who is poor and who is not poor, when they have much bigger problems, like keeping America safe from attacks. If this question, however was should the government give to charity, then it would be a different story, as they would know who the reliable person to give it to would be and it would be quite efficient and simple.